Identify a file format from an extension, filename, or slug (e.g. 'step', 'scan.mcap', 'gltf') and get how to open or convert it: what it stores, its extensions/MIME/spec, whether a free in-browser viewer exists, and available client-side conversions. Use for 'what is this file' / 'how do I open X'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | An extension, filename, or format slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the exact kind of information returned (storage, extensions/MIME/spec, viewer availability, conversions), making behavior predictable. It doesn't mention handling of unknown formats, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'identify' and 'get how to open or convert it'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tightly written sentences: the first states purpose and examples, the second lists the output contents and common use cases. No redundant words or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter identification tool, the description covers input forms and the output domain thoroughly. There is no output schema, so the description appropriately fills in return-value expectations. It could mention what happens for unknown formats, but that is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the single parameter as 'An extension, filename, or format slug' (100% coverage). The description adds concrete examples ('step', 'scan.mcap', 'gltf') and clarifies the accepted forms, adding value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Identify a file format') with input sources (extension, filename, slug) and detailed output contents. It also naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like convert_file and compare_formats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Use for "what is this file" / "how do I open X".' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the use-case guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
get_definition and identify_format both cover file formats, and identify_format also lists conversions, overlapping with convert_file. However, each tool has a distinct primary purpose (definition lookup vs. file identification vs. conversion discovery), so the boundaries are reasonably clear but not perfect.
All tools use a verb_noun pattern (compare_formats, convert_file, get_company, get_definition, identify_format, list_design_jobs) with the exception of 'search' which is a bare verb. This minor deviation is acceptable.
7 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the reference domain, from search to specific lookups to job listings, without redundancy.
The server covers the stated domain well: search for full-text, get_definition for terms/technologies/sensors, identify_format and compare_formats and convert_file for file formats, get_company for companies, and list_design_jobs for careers. The only notable gap is a dedicated tool for standards or sensors, but get_definition and search cover them adequately.
